[Tomcat]

Alan Thomas, on 20 February 2014 - 04:25 PM, said:

You claim you are going to commit revenge on me.
I then suffered at your hands.

You now claim you don't commit revenge yet you say it is not wise to keep "pushing buttons".
What is the consequences of people pushing your buttons if it is not revenge?

/>/>.... No idea Turdo... that will be for the judge to decide />...
the more you keep "pushing buttons" to aggravate / intimidate / threaten,
in the hope that your victims may say something you can use against them,
is only producing more and more evidence of your intent to PERVERT JUSTICE.

Thats the very clear message your delusional diarrhea gives all... and anyone, who bothers to read your crap... FACT

[David Butler]

MINI, on 20 February 2014 - 10:10 AM, said:

"He will not give an honest up front answer to anything at all
Dave"

Now that has taken you mega years to work out hasnt it??
''NO''Claire-ive known that since 2006

And yet you would go out there and put all the rest of us in a position that we can be threatened etc by people we dont even know.
Dont see where i have done that what you allege /accuse me of wrongly again Claire
I mean if you shite yourself reading something that you dumbly believe i published -Then what that actual someone else published - its not my fault you shite y self
If others wish to publish items-THEN THAT IS THEIR CHOICE thus their problem -NOT MINE

For no other reason than you are a dog that changes horses so often it takes a bit of gathering of facts to keep up with whether you on Alan Thomas side or not.
1-alan is a manipulator/wordsmith misleader AND at times downright UNTRUTHFUL -SO Claire ive been well aware of that and/BUT there are things i may ÷ Could have backed him up on and some i definite;y would not
thats not changing horses-my stance has NEVER CHANGED AT ALL
Thats your opinion however you DONT KNOW what i know at all-you just think you do


You say you have distroryed all the documentation and yet you say now you still have the goods to defend yourself. How can that be?? Do you mean you have them in bundles of what is good for whom and what is bad for whom??
YES Alan was forewarned-Act accordingly and uplift them all legally by xmas just gone
he failed to do that so they are gone and HE has informed me HE IS NOT appealing so why keep it anyways?
why would i need to keep stuff about alan to defend myself-whatever do you mean?
ALL WAS sitting as a whole complete package-NOTHING LEFT OUT AT ALL Even personal stuff was in the sequences SO NO Good or bad either way Claire=Thats just you in the tax investigators role as a one sided look at things to gain a point or Two.
It ''WAS'' the lot- and Now no more

I can see the sence in organising your e-mails,posts, threats etc in such a way, but then you wouldnt be getting rid of the TBP stuff, as you need it to defend yourself as you say,
Defend WHAT EXACTLY Claire,
you had been working with Alan Thomas for yonks before he was arrested.
Working with Alan for yonks-whatever do you mean working what a joke you are Claire
why would i work with Alan he cant afford to pay me,AND Whom would work for him anyway
CERTAINLY NEVER ME
Now if you mean i put up with a self centered ,VERY CONDESCENDING Sarcastic MISLEADING LITTLE asshole since 2006 -moreso since Mid 2009 in an attempt to drum the truth into him and give him proof of fact that there were lies within the witness evidence.


=then that be putting up with a complete asshole Claire
NOT WORKING WITH OR FOR HIM

I suppose when you are both worried about private details of members being grabbed by a couple setting up another forum,

SO YOU ARE SAYING Claire that private details of members were taken by a couple-Now that issue yoy refer to COULD ONLY HAVE -BEEN=Kenneth Miller and Mark Davis -


you would both have to know that the information was being collected.
yes Claire-I KNEW before the admin did also well before thimas did that something crooked was amiss-very amiss at that.
As I have often said on here, there were no private details needed when I registered,
I would have to say Claire You are a tad wrong there-Some members use identifying information on joining the site-and then of course we have /HAD -The ad hoc quasi admin Miller and his MATE Douglas Weal-who told orally and emailed as to all and sundry who was who anyways
so most of the members should have no fear of being Identified eh??
They would have -had not the two ''THICKOS'' attempting to enter the forums home base were NOT caught redhanded

Unless someone who collected the personal data dobbed them in to another site eh??
Im unsure what that means Claire
No need for me to ask anyone who anyone THAT i spoke of was-They were publicly known from within this site as persons FoR A LONG TIME
Some mixing and matching occurred along the way to be there in LF with some names but who cares -AS I never gave NOR did i publish ''ANY OF'' them EH Clairity
THE OTHERS Whom BITCHING AND MOAING -NOW YA MAY HAVE A POINT THERE about someone fliking off info to another site on some the rest were dumb as chooks and left themselves open in the likes f facebook and of course as you did in trademe.

Mini

[MINI]

netcoachnz, on 20 February 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

MIni, the special thread made up for you was due to all your argy bargy comments, taking topics off topic by telling your story.

Alan Thomas did not breach any rules with the LF post, check out the rules topic within members only.

If a forum member breaches 1 rule then that does not mean a timeout. The timeout system used is probably based on some mathematical formula that counts how many *report posts* are made about a member, what those *report posts* are for, how many forum members make a *report post* about the same posting and the time frame that these *report posts* were made plus any prior warnings or sanctions given to the forum member. Alan Thomas is one forum member who does follow the rules; so it is very unlikely that he will be timed out.

That maybe because he has all you pussy doing his harassing for him.

I do not believe for one minute Alan Thomas did those threads for Blurb and I for any other reason than he had to prove we were conspritors to the TBP, and guess what he failed miserable. You all failed miserably to do that. He more so than anyone by moving the LF post that named and defamed me to his declination thread. Oh, yes he certainly made a humongours boo boo.

Couple of your old mates run for the hills or just too pissed off with all the repeated garbage.

Oh well after reading over 100 pages of BoD, I had better hit the sack as usual boring in here.

Mini

[David Butler]

Alan Thomas, on 19 February 2014 - 10:02 AM, said:

As I remain injured and cannot return to my preinjury occupation full-time,
what are other members of the site doing to help rectify the situation
so the ACC cannot continue cancelling peoples claims based on assumptions made by their informants?

Alan

What date was the injury that applies to your above post info ?


dave

[Alan Thomas]

David Butler, on 21 February 2014 - 07:07 AM, said:

Alan

What date was the injury that applies to your above post info ?


dave

June 1989
December 1989
September 1992
June 1993

[David Butler]

Alan Thomas, on 21 February 2014 - 07:39 AM, said:

June 1989-injury was
December 1989-Injury was?
September 1992-injury was ?
June 1993-injury was

you say acc cancelled your claim entitlements
which one of those or were all]>was the date/s they used to revoke the cover

[Alan Thomas]

David Butler, on 21 February 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

you say acc cancelled your claim entitlements
which one of those or were all]>was the date/s they used to revoke the cover

The injuries were
strain injury
broken wrist and elbows damage injury
surgical injury
medical accident injury

The ACC did not specify.
The problem is the ACC fraud unit prepared and signed the cancellation letter. All of the staff involved confirmed under oath that they had no idea why they had produced a letter, what information supported it or how the law operated. They certainly did not know the extent of my claims. ACC had been in the practice of placing all of my claims under the one number so it is very possible they had no idea that I had more than one claim. They certainly did not take into consideration any of the injuries with resulting incapacity let alone make any comparisons with my preinjury occupation as they confirmed they did not know what work I did before the injury/s. There could not have been a bigger botch up. However the district court judge has attempted to correct the ACC botch up by cancelling the original decision and making a new one for the ACC then applying his expertise as he saw it to determine whether or not I still remain incapacitated despite not having any information at all. So in other words the judge became in his own mind a doctor, just like the ACC thought they were when they made what they claim to be a commonsense decision.

The point of law requires the ACC to rely upon Independent qualified third-party Information and that Goes for the judge as well.

The mystery to me as why on earth don't the members of the site provide me with the relevant support. Can you explain that Mr Butler?

[David Butler]

Alan Thomas, on 21 February 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

The injuries were
strain injury
broken wrist and elbows damage injury
surgical injury
medical accident injury

The ACC did not specify.
The problem is the ACC fraud unit prepared and signed the cancellation letter. All of the staff involved confirmed under oath that they had no idea why they had produced a letter, what information supported it or how the law operated. They certainly did not know the extent of my claims. ACC had been in the practice of placing all of my claims under the one number so it is very possible they had no idea that I had more than one claim. They certainly did not take into consideration any of the injuries with resulting incapacity let alone make any comparisons with my preinjury occupation as they confirmed they did not know what work I did before the injury/s. There could not have been a bigger botch up. However the district court judge has attempted to correct the ACC botch up by cancelling the original decision and making a new one for the ACC then applying his expertise as he saw it to determine whether or not I still remain incapacitated despite not having any information at all. So in other words the judge became in his own mind a doctor, just like the ACC thought they were when they made what they claim to be a commonsense decision.

The point of law requires the ACC to rely upon Independent qualified third-party Information and that Goes for the judge as well.

The mystery to me as why on earth don't the members of the site provide me with the relevant support. Can you explain that Mr Butler?
most likely due to the prose above as being the ongoing scenario from you for many years in here alan

I NEVER asked you for all that alan

WHAT Claim was cancelled that created the need for this thread

[Alan Thomas]

David Butler, on 21 February 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

I NEVER asked you for all that alan WHAT Claim was cancelled that created the need for this thread

ACC never said but they did say "total declinature".

The mystery to me as why on earth don't the members of the site provide me with the relevant support.

Can you explain that Mr Butler?

[David Butler]

Alan Thomas, on 21 February 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:

ACC never said but they did say "total declinature".

The mystery to me as why on earth don't the members of the site provide me with the relevant support.

Can you explain that Mr Butler?

Well WHAT did they Total Declinature''

Declinature is in short
refusing declining turning down and is used such as at times by an insurer to decline OR approve a new proposal after thorough evaluation of the application for insurance

WHAT EXACTLY DID THEY DECLINE and WHAT DATE OF INJURY/S DID THE DECLINE REALTE TO

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT Please Mr Thomas??

[Alan Thomas]

David Butler, on 21 February 2014 - 09:18 AM, said:

Well WHAT did they Total Declinature''

Declinature is in short
refusing declining turning down and is used such as at times by an insurer to decline OR approve a new proposal after thorough evaluation of the application for insurance

WHAT EXACTLY DID THEY DECLINE and WHAT DATE OF INJURY/S DID THE DECLINE REALTE TO

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT Please Mr Thomas??

The ACC have not specified.

I have asked them to specify but they refuse.

[David Butler]

Alan Thomas, on 21 February 2014 - 09:24 AM, said:

The ACC have not specified.

I have asked them to specify but they refuse.

lets make it easy then for ya alan
YOU HAD A CLAIM with the acc-yo umust have to be declined/atured
ThEY paid you FOR a/or more particular claim/s you had placed with them and the case management was in play
Nw fuk de saying acc never specified
I DONT BELIVE that anyway
THEY MUST HAVE SAID WORDINGS with a particular reference t what the had a declinatured-meaning a bloody good look at it again=and decided that it was BOGUS and and THUS-
DECLINATURED YOU =On that particular case managed claim/s
stop telling MISLEADING porkys and wordsmithing ya way round what YOU appear to ==>>>>>DONT WANT TO ANSWER Alan

TELL US WHAT INJURY YOU HAD ''Officially as on your acc files being CASE MANAGED THAT WAS DECLINATURED
No need to ask the bloody acc alan
you know full well what claim / injury it was so explain when / what it was
can you do that Mr Thomas???
dave
Dave

[Alan Thomas]

I know what claims I have submitted and what have been accepted.

The ACC without warning or decision letter that we stopped compensation and the surgery October 1991. When they were challenged they made five different decisions trying to make a decision that was lawful. Effectively they claimed that my incapacity was temporary under s59 of the 1982 act and that I had recovered from my injuries. The information they relied upon was their informants who thought that I might have been working because I owned a number of companies and had been seen in the office. The case management were aware that I was learning new programs using my computers that were in the office while waiting for my surgery. They had also been provided with the letter stating that I would be attending weekly meetings to maintain a direction on my companies and would receive a nominal fee for this contribution.

I also know that the two review hearing decisions in my favour In 1992 require the ACC to disregard the fact that I owned a number of companies and was a director and pay my compensation and surgery so I may return to my preinjury occupation and original earnings capacity.

ACC have made a note in my file that they do not agree with the reviewers decision and will try again.

In 1997 the ACC tried again but this time Refused to give any information whatsoever that form the basis of their decision except they claimed to have information that I was "working". After more than 10 years the ACC made a few further disclosures including the fact that they did not have any particular information about any work task activity at all at any material time but felt that they could make a decision based on what they called "commonsense" or in other words their intuition.

I note that a lot of people on this site seem to be driven by their intuition, including you Mr Butler. The tagteam particularly operate on emotion intuition and hysteria, just like the ACC and even offer the ACC what they call high-value information.



What is before the court as the issue as to whether or not the ACC is permitted to make decisions based on what they call "commonsense". My position is that the ACC are not allowed to make decision based on their commonsense but are required by legislation to rely upon the expert information from those who are qualified and experienced to produce information such as medical professionals, occupational experts and suchlike. People in the street such as members of the site have no business whatsoever reaching conclusions about what is fact or reality because they simply do not have the expertise qualifications and experience to have an opinion.

For my own part I rely upon the experts will my information. For example of a surgeon says I cannot carry out the work task activities on my former occupation until I have surgery then I do not take part in any such work task activities remotely similar so as to keep myself safe and preserve the residual structures in order that the surgery will be successful. After 2 1/2 decades I have surgery and am on the road to recovery to return to my preinjury occupation full-time. Of course this will be a slow measured program under the supervision of medical professionals.

[David Butler]

Alan Thomas, on 21 February 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

I know what claims I have submitted and what have been accepted.

The ACC without warning or decision letter that we stopped compensation and the surgery October 1991.
you knew you were in trouble alan -youd avoided them enough to cause then to give you the final ultimata-turn up at the case mangers office or ya lost ya cover
When they [you]were challenged they [YOU]made five different decisions [MISLEAD THEM]trying to [COVER YA ASS]make a decision that was lawful. Effectively they claimed that my incapacity was temporary under s59 of the 1982 act and that I had recovered from my injuries. The information they relied upon was their informants who thought that I might have been working because I owned a number of companies and had been seen in the office. The case management were aware that I was learning new programs using my computers that were in the office while waiting for my surgery. They had also been provided with the letter stating that I would be attending weekly meetings to maintain a direction on my companies and would receive a nominal fee for this contribution.

I also know that the two review hearing decisions in my favour In 1992 require the ACC to disregard the fact that I owned a number of companies and was a director and pay my compensation and surgery so I may return to my preinjury occupation and original earnings capacity.

ACC have made a note in my file that they do not agree with the reviewers decision and will try again.

In 1997 the ACC tried again but this time Refused to give any information whatsoever that form the basis of their decision except they claimed to have information that I was "working". After more than 10 years the ACC made a few further disclosures including the fact that they did not have any particular information about any work task activity at all at any material time but felt that they could make a decision based on what they called "commonsense" or in other words their intuition.

I note that a lot of people on this site seem to be driven by their intuition, including you Mr Butler. The tagteam particularly operate on emotion intuition and hysteria, just like the ACC and even offer the ACC what they call high-value information.



What is before the court as the issue as to whether or not the ACC is permitted to make decisions based on what they call "commonsense". My position is that the ACC are not allowed to make decision based on their commonsense but are required by legislation to rely upon the expert information from those who are qualified and experienced to produce information such as medical professionals, occupational experts and suchlike. People in the street such as members of the site have no business whatsoever reaching conclusions about what is fact or reality because they simply do not have the expertise qualifications and experience to have an opinion.

For my own part I rely upon the experts will my information. For example of a surgeon says I cannot carry out the work task activities on my former occupation until I have surgery then I do not take part in any such work task activities remotely similar so as to keep myself safe and preserve the residual structures in order that the surgery will be successful. [BUT Alan-YOU DID undertake to work-why LIES?] After 2 1/2 decades I have surgery and am on the road to recovery to return to my preinjury occupation full-time. Of course this will be a slow measured program under the supervision of medical professionals.

Alan
as you consistently fail tp even remotely provide info so that ones can see whats gone on and this maybe accede to your request of help-what are the members going to do
it must be this then
YOU HAD A CLAIM accepted for
a reinjury to an older injury to your wrist Completed as a claim officially made by you ,complete with medical certification and information re the accident in September 1990 .
THE ACCIDENT IN QUESTION initially occurred in december 1989
mmmm 1990 you made a claim??
I do understand that you had a hernia injury around this time but it seems from you that that was all fixed up and you were back on deck so to speak so no further cover needed there.?
Yo CLEARLY STATED-You strained an OLD injury in your right arm as result of a sailing accident-thrown overboard by the said in a storm when you wer three miles out to sea as a lone sailor at that [-the Good Ship Hector one assumes here?]
The acc obliging accepted that claim bearing in mind you never provided any independent evidence or medical notes to acc within that transaction of claim data -from that period of 1989
and then LATER
UNACEPTED IT VIA THE DECLINIATION

is that the case alan
A Simple YES or No answer please without the wordsmithing avoidance
Claire if ya round
ya may just find today and the weekend a tad interesting in this thread
times up for alan im afraid
dave

[Alan Thomas]

David Butler, on 21 February 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

Alan
as you consistently fail tp even remotely provide info so that ones can see whats gone on and this maybe accede to your request of help-what are the members going to do
it must be this then
YOU HAD A CLAIM accepted for
a reinjury to an older injury to your wrist Completed as a claim officially made by you ,complete with medical certification and information re the accident in September 1990 .
THE ACCIDENT IN QUESTION initially occurred in december 1989
mmmm 1990 you made a claim??
I do understand that you had a hernia injury around this time but it seems from you that that was all fixed up and you were back on deck so to speak so no further cover needed there.?
Yo CLEARLY STATED-You strained an OLD injury in your right arm as result of a sailing accident-thrown overboard by the said in a storm when you wer three miles out to sea as a lone sailor at that [-the Good Ship Hector one assumes here?]
The acc obliging accepted that claim bearing in mind you never provided any independent evidence or medical notes to acc within that transaction of claim data -from that period of 1989
and then LATER
UNACEPTED IT VIA THE DECLINIATION

is that the case alan
No its not
A Simple YES or No answer please without the wordsmithing avoidance
Claire if ya round
ya may just find today and the weekend a tad interesting in this thread
times up for alan im afraid
dave

David you cannot rely upon Douglas Weal's imagination and caught his imagination fact which you are now using as the basis for a viewpoint that you are attempting to expand. The ACC are fully aware of all of the injuries I have had and have explored all the possible mechanisms of escape from their liability along the way you have suggested but the reality established by the medical profession and other documentation just doesn't fit with this type of nonsense thinking.

In answer to your question about the strain injury, yes I am still disabled by that original injury. The type of work load necessary to perform the tasks of my preinjury occupation obviously required a very heavy work capacity To the extent of maximum kilo lift capacity. After the first stage of surgery I have just benefited from I now have an increase of up to 4 KG which is a vast improvement on my capacity since the June 1989 strain injury Up until the last few months which I'm building up to the maximum potential of four KG. The 4KG is limited by the thickness of the metal rod. This means if I exceed the 4 KG and the ACC informants report to the ACC that I have exceeded that limitation it does not mean I have a capacity for work. It just means I have put the surgery at risk and must stop such activity immediately.

[Alan Thomas]

David Butler, on 21 February 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

Alan
as you consistently fail tp even remotely provide info so that ones can see whats gone on and this maybe accede to your request of help-what are the members going to do
it must be this then
YOU HAD A CLAIM accepted for
a reinjury to an older injury to your wrist Completed as a claim officially made by you ,complete with medical certification and information re the accident in September 1990 .
THE ACCIDENT IN QUESTION initially occurred in december 1989
mmmm 1990 you made a claim??
I do understand that you had a hernia injury around this time but it seems from you that that was all fixed up and you were back on deck so to speak so no further cover needed there.?
Yo CLEARLY STATED-You strained an OLD injury in your right arm as result of a sailing accident-thrown overboard by the said in a storm when you wer three miles out to sea as a lone sailor at that [-the Good Ship Hector one assumes here?]
The acc obliging accepted that claim bearing in mind you never provided any independent evidence or medical notes to acc within that transaction of claim data -from that period of 1989
and then LATER
UNACEPTED IT VIA THE DECLINIATION

is that the case alan
No its not
A Simple YES or No answer please without the wordsmithing avoidance
Claire if ya round
ya may just find today and the weekend a tad interesting in this thread
times up for alan im afraid
dave

David you cannot rely upon Douglas Weal's imagination and call his imagination fact which you are now using as the basis for a viewpoint that you are attempting to expand. The ACC are fully aware of all of the injuries I have had and have explored all the possible mechanisms of escape from their liability along the way you have suggested but the reality established by the medical profession and other documentation just doesn't fit with this type of nonsense thinking.

In answer to your question about the strain injury, yes I am still disabled by that original injury. The type of work load necessary to perform the tasks of my preinjury occupation obviously required a very heavy work capacity To the extent of maximum kilo lift capacity. After the first stage of surgery I have just benefited from I now have an increase of up to 4 KG which is a vast improvement on my capacity since the June 1989 strain injury Up until the last few months which I'm building up to the maximum potential of four KG. The 4KG is limited by the thickness of the metal rod. This means if I exceed the 4 KG and the ACC informants report to the ACC that I have exceeded that limitation it does not mean I have a capacity for work. It just means I have put the surgery at risk and must stop such activity immediately.

[David Butler]

Alan Thomas, on 21 February 2014 - 11:20 AM, said:

David you cannot rely upon Douglas Weal's imagination and caught his imagination fact which you are now using as the basis for a viewpoint that you are attempting to expand.

I am NOT uing anythig from or of WEAL Alan-far from it

The ACC are fully aware of all of the injuries I have had and have explored all the possible mechanisms of escape from their liability along the way you have suggested but the reality established by the medical profession and other documentation just doesn't fit with this type of nonsense thinking.

In answer to your question about the strain injury, yes I am still disabled by that original injury.
YOU ARE NOT DISABLED BY THE original INJURY Alan-YOU DID CLAIM TO BE DISABLED-BUT me old chook-you claimed to be disabled by a REINJURY OF AN OLD ONE-Ya cant have two goes at this alan
The type of work load necessary to perform the tasks of my preinjury occupation obviously required a very heavy work capacity To the extent of maximum kilo lift capacity. After the first stage of surgery I have just benefited from I now have an increase of up to 4 KG which is a vast improvement on my capacity since the June 1989 strain injury Up until the last few months which I'm building up to the maximum potential of four KG. The 4KG is limited by the thickness of the metal rod. This means if I exceed the 4 KG and the ACC informants report to the ACC that I have exceeded that limitation it does not mean I have a capacity for work. It just means I have put the surgery at risk and must stop such activity immediately.
BUT Alan You tell LIES here
YOU ENTERED INTO A WORK deal long long ago didnt you now?-TELL THE TRUTH TIME Thomas


dave

[David Butler]

The wording clearly says alan
YOU Alan said you strained an old injury as a result of a sailing accident
YOUR WORDS Alan
now was it a injury at the time of hectors demise and you later claimed for it
or
did you do something in September 1990 to reinjure the 1989 hectors accident damage to your wrist

One would think you would have placed that info within your advice of claim that you were injured by hector and then did something later to reinjure it
OR
You would have put a claim in in december 1989
A very much Thomas at his best-wordsmithed lot of data that you supplied Alan, with your acc claim for the wrist injury you allege disables you even now.
dave

[Alan Thomas]

David you are quoting the thoughts of weal virtually word for word. Probably you have not realised you have been indoctrinated and are still under his power without the ability of independent thought relying on evidence-based fact rather than imagination.

How on earth could you possibly form an opinion about the state of my strain injury that I received June 1989 when stopping a machine toppling over? Simply guessing does not generate reality. What you are doing is generating propaganda to support something that the ACC does not even believe in. Naturally you must have a direct motive to make allegations that are not supported by fact of which the ACC directly oppose. Clearly you have something brewing and are plotting and conspiring. As there is no possibility of you having any benefit from such plotting and your story follows what weal have been saying on this site and some items that have not been mentioned to anyone in public the driving force does currently seem to be from weal. When was the last time you had any communication with him?

For example you claim that my wrist injury is a re-injury of an existing injury without having any practicable to support that notion. Obviously you are not aware that the structural items that have been broken are on the other side of the wrist having no relationship with the original injury. In other words the original injury was a broken radius while the new and different injury involved the ulnar, an entirely different bone. Of course if you persist with nonsense made up facts supported only by your imagination and desire to attack you are identified as a person promoting propaganda for a particular reason. What is your motive and reason for the propaganda?

With regards to to separate injuries of course I have a legitimate expectation of receiving compensation for both injuries to the full extent of my entitlement, not one cent less. Why would you promote ACC getting some kind of a discount unless you have a motive?

How has my rehabilitation plans got any relationship with the medical limitation specified by the medical profession? One thing has no relationship to the other. People attending to promote and untrue frequently become confused when required to confront reality. 4 KG is the physical limitation restricting me to return to my preinjury occupation. I can however return to my old occupation on light duties which is what I am doing now and have been arranging to do for some time. How do you think making arrangements to rehabilitate indicates any kind of successful rehabilitation. Again this is your irrational thinking in an attempt to support an ill-conceived thought process. Even though you are trying to do things the ACC way you still will not be employed by them because they consider you as being untrustworthy which is the reason why they did not want you giving evidence to support the memo you provided the ACC when you suggested, again based on wheels imagination or plotting and scheming, that some harm might come to them based on what you have heard.

Please confirm as to whether or not you have gone back to the ACC to explain to them that it is your belief I am no risk to them because Douglas weal and Kenneth Miller had set about to destroy my name and attempted to include you in that process. Have you contacted the ACC to correct them in relation to your ill-conceived fax or not? If not why not?

[David Butler]

Alan Thomas, on 21 February 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

David you are quoting the thoughts of weal virtually word for word. Probably you have not realised you have been indoctrinated and are still under his power without the ability of independent thought relying on evidence-based fact rather than imagination.
Im NOT using Weals data fot anything here Alan
im using your very own documentation to write prose to you here

How on earth could you possibly form an opinion about the state of my strain injury that I received June 1989 when stopping a machine toppling over?
Did you claim for that one-ive askd yo what you claimed for as to what was declinatured-but yu side skiped that query eh?

Simply guessing does not generate reality. What you are doing is generating propaganda to support something that the ACC does not even believe in. Naturally you must have a direct motive to make allegations that are not supported by fact of which the ACC directly oppose. Clearly you have something brewing and are plotting and conspiring. As there is no possibility of you having any benefit from such plotting and your story follows what weal have been saying on this site and some items that have not been [very incorrect there alan]mentioned to anyone in public the driving force does currently seem to be from weal. When was the last time you had any communication with him?That is my personal info Alan-That wouldnt youlove to know-SO GO get fran and his i pod detective agency to acquire that info for you

For example you claim that my wrist injury is a re-injury of an existing injury without having any practicable to support that notion.
YES i have YOUR DOCUMENTS ALAN

Obviously you are not aware that the structural items that have been broken are on the other side of the wrist having no relationship with the original injury. In other words the original injury was a broken radius while the new and different injury involved the ulnar, an entirely different bone. Of course if you persist with nonsense made up facts supported only by your imagination and desire to attack you are identified as a person promoting propaganda for a particular reason. What is your motive and reason for the propaganda?
Which one do you alleged then you damaged on HECTOR and made an acc claim on-The first or the second one??

With regards to to separate injuries of course I have a legitimate expectation of receiving compensation for both injuries to the full extent of my entitlement, not one cent less. Why would you promote ACC getting some kind of a discount unless you have a motive?

How has my rehabilitation plans got any relationship with the medical limitation specified by the medical profession? One thing has no relationship to the other. People attending to promote and untrue frequently become confused when required to confront reality. 4 KG is the physical limitation restricting me to return to my preinjury occupation. I can however return to my old occupation on light duties which is what I am doing now [You did that long ago Alan DONT TELL BLOODY LIES IN HERE]and have been arranging to do for some time. How do you think making arrangements to rehabilitate indicates any kind of successful rehabilitation. Again this is your irrational thinking in an attempt to support an ill-conceived thought process. Even though you are trying to do things the ACC way you still will not be employed by them because they consider you as being untrustworthy which is the reason why they did not want you giving evidence to support the memo you provided the ACC when you suggested, again based on wheels imagination or plotting and scheming, that some harm might come to them based on what you have heard.

Please confirm as to whether or not you have gone back to the ACC to explain to them that it is your belief I am no risk to them because Douglas weal and Kenneth Miller had set about to destroy my name and attempted to include you in that process. Have you contacted the ACC to correct them in relation to your ill-conceived fax or not? If not why not?


so why not
ACC has NEVER ASKED ME to=THATS WHY NOT
dave